A spicy-but-hopeful discussion about a rare triumph of public good over private ownership and what it all might mean for future of the world's most popular game
I find this comical. So we go back to the model of "only the 2 or 3 teams with rich owners who are probably more corrupt than any other owners" wins? How is that different from or better than 15 clubs in the ESL?
I keep reading about the German 50+1 model as a desirable reform but I'm not sure I agree. First, the Bundesliga has absolutely zero competition. Bayern is set to win its ninth title in a row without breaking a sweat. When another team dares challenge Bayern they just buy that team's best player (see also PSG buying Mbappe when Monaco had the audacity to dethrone them). With the 50+1 model in place, Bayern's ridiculous financial advantage over its competitors seems insurmountable. Unless of course someone (or say an energy drink company) was able to find a loophole around the 50+1 model.
That's the second factor that has me questioning the efficacy of the 50+1 model. What's to stop Abu Dhabi from finding a work around to "buy" Man City like Red Bull (err RasenBallsport) while smaller clubs like West Brom are purchased by "true" fans? The financial gaps will still exist with no guarantee of increased competition. Also, if the big clubs with workarounds are still controlled by deep pocketed owners, what's to stop them from trying for another Super League?
Banning agents, whatever you think of Raiola, is inherently unfriendly to labor. Seems like an unnecessary step when clubs could simply refuse to pay those exorbitant fees.
I like what’s happened in the NHL. It may not be a perfect system, but the salary cap has put all the teams on equal footing to a large degree and introduced an equality that ensures management has to be responsible, and that developing and training must take precedence because you can’t just buy a better player anytime you want. If that were applied to the premier league, then you wouldn’t have the same teams dominating year after year, and if they did it would be due to coaching, well apportioned rosters, and superior performances. I’m heartened and think that the true fans of the sport would appreciate that level of competitiveness, and reward it with their attention. The only ones that would complain are the richest clubs who couldn’t dominate the rest anymore, which frankly I’m fine with. Why not Everton? Why not Leeds? Look how exciting it was when Leicester came on the scene! It became a must watch event.
Last thought, as they need to increase revenue through eyeballs, why not introduce a USEFUL tournament instead of the silly ones football keeps adding that have no meaning?
I’d be okay with a tournament structure at seasons end among the ranked teams, 1-8, a short knockout tournament of the teams that have had good seasons. If you introduce parity, those teams aren’t always the same and the team that came in first isn’t necessarily the team that wins the tournament, and that’s exciting as well. Those elements would boost viewership imho and provide the extra tv revenue they need.
I find this comical. So we go back to the model of "only the 2 or 3 teams with rich owners who are probably more corrupt than any other owners" wins? How is that different from or better than 15 clubs in the ESL?
I keep reading about the German 50+1 model as a desirable reform but I'm not sure I agree. First, the Bundesliga has absolutely zero competition. Bayern is set to win its ninth title in a row without breaking a sweat. When another team dares challenge Bayern they just buy that team's best player (see also PSG buying Mbappe when Monaco had the audacity to dethrone them). With the 50+1 model in place, Bayern's ridiculous financial advantage over its competitors seems insurmountable. Unless of course someone (or say an energy drink company) was able to find a loophole around the 50+1 model.
That's the second factor that has me questioning the efficacy of the 50+1 model. What's to stop Abu Dhabi from finding a work around to "buy" Man City like Red Bull (err RasenBallsport) while smaller clubs like West Brom are purchased by "true" fans? The financial gaps will still exist with no guarantee of increased competition. Also, if the big clubs with workarounds are still controlled by deep pocketed owners, what's to stop them from trying for another Super League?
Banning agents, whatever you think of Raiola, is inherently unfriendly to labor. Seems like an unnecessary step when clubs could simply refuse to pay those exorbitant fees.
I like what’s happened in the NHL. It may not be a perfect system, but the salary cap has put all the teams on equal footing to a large degree and introduced an equality that ensures management has to be responsible, and that developing and training must take precedence because you can’t just buy a better player anytime you want. If that were applied to the premier league, then you wouldn’t have the same teams dominating year after year, and if they did it would be due to coaching, well apportioned rosters, and superior performances. I’m heartened and think that the true fans of the sport would appreciate that level of competitiveness, and reward it with their attention. The only ones that would complain are the richest clubs who couldn’t dominate the rest anymore, which frankly I’m fine with. Why not Everton? Why not Leeds? Look how exciting it was when Leicester came on the scene! It became a must watch event.
Last thought, as they need to increase revenue through eyeballs, why not introduce a USEFUL tournament instead of the silly ones football keeps adding that have no meaning?
I’d be okay with a tournament structure at seasons end among the ranked teams, 1-8, a short knockout tournament of the teams that have had good seasons. If you introduce parity, those teams aren’t always the same and the team that came in first isn’t necessarily the team that wins the tournament, and that’s exciting as well. Those elements would boost viewership imho and provide the extra tv revenue they need.
The Brentford model seems to be the way ahead here. Perhaps worth interviewing Bees United about their "golden share"? https://www.beesunited.org.uk/in-focus/why-the-brentford-model-of-a-fan-director-and-a-golden-share-could-work-at-your-club/
What about the French model where an owner can own 100% but with the DNCG control can't spend more than he earns/plans to earn?
I demand to know if Blyth is a Dundee or Dundee Utd fan
He's an Evertonian.
The summary of the history of baseball is woefully incorrect, but other than that, pretty interesting interview.